Re Lannan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Charleton J.
• Judgment Date: 27 May 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] IEHC 153
• Court: High Court
• Date: 27 May 2008

[2008] IEHC 153

The High Court

Lannan, In Re

[no record number, proceedings not issued]

Chancery List

Application of a Patient, Sean Lannan

RSC O.84

CONSTITUTION ART 40.4

WARD OF COURT, RE 1996 2 IR 79

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE

Judicial review

Applicant failing to comply with Rules of Superior Courts in seeking leave to issue judicial review - Medical treatment - Whether applicant should be granted leave to seek judicial review in respect of administrative decision concerning his medical condition - Whether rules of court should be waived in circumstances of application - In Re a Ward of Court (withholding medical treatment) (No 2) [1996] 2 IR 79 considered - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986), O 84 - Relief refused (Charleton J - 27/5/2008) [2008] IEHC 153

In re Sean Lannon, a patient

Ruling of

Charleton J.

1 Mr Lannan made an application to me yesterday, both in writing and in person. Mr Lannan is a qualified barrister, and indeed this is evident in the clarity of the exposition in the draft affidavit put before me and in the concision of his submissions.

2 Mr Lannan has had medical problems which he has asked me not to publicly indicate. This has resulted in him being a patient in various hospitals in the State. It is a source of worry to him that what is a cause of pain and distress to him has yet to be resolved and I can only hope that it will be resolved in the near future.

3 Where a patient has been unlawfully deprived of medical treatment, this may be the subject of a judicial review application. It is impossible for me to say whether such an. application will be successful or not because, in the case of Mr Lannan, I have not seen both sides of the argument, A judicial review application can be commenced only by leave of the High Court and only there when a draft notice of motion, supported as to the facts alleged by affidavit, is put before the court on an ex parte basis and showing an arguable case that the wrong deposed to on affidavit has given rise to a right to relief from the court, as sought and stated in the Statement of Grounds for Judicial review under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. This has not happened in this case.

4 Mr Lannan, however, submits that I should exercise an inherent jurisdiction to do justice and thus override the rules of court. I agree with Mr Lannan...